Thistle17

After too many years of arm chair ship modeling interest, I have rejoined the fold, in a more active roll, at the prompting of colleagues in our newly formed ship model forum in Rochester, NY. Having been away for so long I needed a project to reawaken my skills, I chose a Corel kit of HMS Unicorn dating back to the 1980's I acquired from the defunct Bliss Marine. I have had an off again, on again relationship with the kit as I came to realize there were flaws in its authentic nature. Research on MSW and through the internet made me aware of its flaws (something like that pretty girl you got to know that wasn't that pretty inside if you get my drift).

In the MSW section on"Model Ship Kits....Reviews" I documented observations I made regarding the hull comparison to the Chapman drawing in 'Architectura Navalis Mercatoria". In summary "I didn't think we could have a long term relationship" (in boy/girl parlance). As a result I stared to put it aside until I received from Campbell Ross, in Alberta Canada, some of the ship's log for the Unicorn of 1747! He was quite familiar with the vessel as he is from England and had lived close by the preservation site of the current Unicorn. That turned me around.

So as with anything in life I began breaking down what was troubling me about this vessel's authenticity. In a nut shell (and this relates to the hull only):

* The stem is a bit odd in shape by comparison (it has been modified to come closer to Chapman and it has been extended to enable placement of the figurehead on top of the stem reach (this should also allow a more realistic head-rail treatment))

* The stern is too steep by comparison it has been modified somewhat to address this. I may extend its upper width if I don't get in trouble with the counter.

* Chapman's depiction shows 26 guns on the upper deck, while Corel shows 24. To get to the 26 guns Chapman depicts a gun port just forward of the side gallery (starboard). Odd it should be that close to the gallery windows?? Secondly the Chapman plate shows a gun port forward of the fore mast. Corel does not.

* Lastly mast spacing is not the same (more on this later)

* An update (2/24): I over-layed the new keel over the Chapman drawing (at the same scale) before reattaching. Didn't think to do this earlier. Although modified as stated it does not match to my satisfaction. The Chapman plate depicts a more "bulbous" bow below the waterline. Hmmm, another compromise as it is much too difficult to modify the false keel and new keel at this point. Having the Chapman source is a two edged sword isn't it?

So in compromise I have redone the false keel by cutting "the keel" off at the bearding line (there is none on the kit) and rebuilding it as shown in the photo. I used cherry laminated to bass to achieve a "look" I am headed for.

In my next installment i will address the gun port solution (if there is one) and the assembly of the bulkheads onto the false keel. Over time the false keel has warped so I will have to address that as well.

I will add my opinion to your query regarding paint vs stain or natural for ship models. I have done both. I have a wonderful solid hull model of the Bluenose which I air brushed the hull and brush painted cap rails, mast caps etc.It is some 30 years old now and it still looks terrific, if not authentic. Yes the hull was sanded, sealed and touched up with automotive body putty, primed and then painted. For authenticity i do not think the hull of the real vessel ever had this appearance even when first launched. Some models are enhanced greatly when you can see the wood plank lines, crisp edges and joinery. Which brings me to another point, wood materials. In my opinion again I would never paint a model "dressed out" in pearwood, boxwood, holly and even some other exotics. It wood be a crime. Rather I would "paint with wood" (using different colors of wood to accentuate it). If you are using basswood I would caution you that you may be disappointed with painting this w/o some surface prep, i.e., sealing. It is such a fibrous wood that  is hard to get crisp edges and eliminate the fuzz. Again my opinion.

Also do use fine pigment paints whether you spray or brush as many paints are just inappropriate for fine detail parts.  

Michael:

Your model of this vessel is outstanding! It brings back memories as i lived in Portsmouth R.I. in the 1960's just across Narragansett Bay from Bristol R.I. where the Herreshoff boat yard used to be. I could look out our windows at all the boats sailing out of Bristol. I would image many were this craft. It is a beautiful subject.

Today there stands a terrific boat museum, just outside of the main thoroughfare in Bristol, featuring many of thier craft. It is a tribute to the brothers. I wonder if you have ever had the chance to visit being so far away.

Thank you all for your replies. This dialog helps me understand and decision a direction to take. Since this kit did not include small boats I am more than likely headed in the direction to open the waist a bit and include the boat stack properly in that area.  I do find the research aspect of modeling as fascinating as the actual build. I always feel I am working from a more informed "datum" when I interact with you all. I must remind myself of the evolutionary nature of the real vessels from keel laid to launch to repair and retrofit can and did change these vessels even over their short lives and of course their successors. No different in today's Navies.

Mike, there is one question I do wish to ask immediately, as some of the other discrepancies I can either live with or even ignore. The opening of the waist is puzzling to me for the following reasons/observations. Some have opened it up completely such as the reference you provided in your prior response. Others have opened it up somewhat. I have seen in the Chapman plates it depicted as in the kit. I have a pamphlet from a French museum of "The Venus", 1782 with the waist also as it is in the kit. What is the origin of all of the interpretation I am seeing? In observation I would think that completely cutting the spar/quarter deck in 2 with the exposed upper deck had to be inefficient to crew when trying to get from one end of the vessel to the other, not to mention soaking wet gun crews. Why would they have done this?

Thanks Mike for the great feedback and reference model web site. I will have to study the images provided on that web site and also take into account the points you have made. I will be back as I progress with comments. And as I said i will build this model albeit with a bit of caution and reserve when I speak to its authenticity.

I am relatively new to MSW but have a longtime love of ship modeling. Unfortunately life's needs took me in other directions so I have been an "armchair" modeler for some 25 years, I relate that as I bought a Corel kit of the HMS Unicorn somewhere back in the 80's but never pursued the build for reasons related. Recently we formed a model ship forum/club in Rochester NY and I joined. It is an august group of active modelers so I had to "up my game". I pulled out the HMS Unicorn and began critically looking at the model. The Unicorn threads on this web site was a good place to start.  I down loaded the Chapman plate that may have been the genesis for the Corel kit. Using witness marks, that appear to be the waterline reference, I had the digital image magnified to the same dimensions of the HMS Unicorn drawing at a professional imaging/printing house. I then overlaid the false keel of the kit onto the resultant drawing. I traced the bulkhead positions, the mast positions and the gun port locations onto the enlarged Chapman plate. The magnified plate and the false keel have a reasonable similarity save the following: the false keel stern has a slightly sharper rise from "skeg" to the stern counter, the false keel stem area does not match the reference, the gun ports are not in agreement with the reference and finally the mast spacing do not match. The reference mast spacing compared to the kit are as follows; fore to main 31 mm difference, main to mizzen 11 mm difference. Dimensional differences indicate wider spacing on the reference drawing.

Finally using reference marks drawn on the false keel I overlaid select bulkheads onto the contour portion of the reference drawing to compare the profiles. I did take into account the station differences of the reference to the false keel bulkheads as best as possible. The traces do not match up well I am sorry to say. I think I read somewhere else that the beam of the reference was wider and it doesn't seem to be that far off when one accounts that there is no planking on the bulkheads at this time. The contours amid ship seem pretty close.  However the bow and stern contours do not match up well. For the bow between the 1st and 3rd station and between the 14th and 16th bulkheads of the stern (kit bulkhead numbers) the contours are off above the waterline for the bow and below the waterline at the stern..

Regarding the gun port placement I have to assume that the differences in general are related to the designers preference to position the kit gun ports dead center between bulkheads.  In general they are mostly askew main mast to stern and slightly askew main mast forward. One notable difference is that the reference drawing has a gun port at the turn of the bow considerably forward of the fore mast. The kit does not.

Other differences have been duly noted by others so need to retrace those comments. The figure head on the reference plate is above the stem while the kit depicts the figurehead below. I only offer this input to add to the comments, corrections and modifications offered by others. Admittedly my kit is an older version of the model but as I look closely at what others have shown I suspect little has changed since my vintage of the kit.

I think my investigative approach has been sound and while empirical methodology can introduce error I think what I offer does not add "noise" to what others have submitted. I would like to hear back from others as i will build this model "finally" ! I still think it is a worthy subject. Yet, I will not submit to anyone that it is a replica!

My other passion is woodworking, mostly furniture. I have been eyeing the Byrnes Table Saw and was interested in the titling table option. However my hesitancy is the actual use for I do not see how one avoids the problem of trapping the work piece between the saw blade and the fence or whatever one uses to guide the material through the cut. I have a right tilting full size table saw and it is absolutely a "no-no" to trap the  material between the blade and rip fence. Bad cuts or worse yet bad things can happen when one tries this. I have to move my fence to the left of the blade to avoid the trap. So can someone explain the Byrnes saw operation as shown in photos?

Do you suppose Mercdaddy27 we could compare kit contents in a controlled fashion so as not to contaminate yours? I am a resident of Webster NY and a member of NRG.

I had ordered a ME kit of the Essex in October of 2014 and it arrived in early 2015. In reading this thread I have become a bit confused regarding the release and shipment date of the "revised kit". I am not sure of what I have at this point.  Also I think I saw some where in this thread on this site regarding a time stamp on the kit or drawings. Did I imagine this? Thanks